×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Son Sues Mother Over Facebook Posts

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the check-your-family-status dept.

Privacy 428

Most kids hate having their parents join in on a discussion on Facebook, but one 16-year-old in Arkansas hates it so much he has filed suit against his mother, charging her with harassment. From the article: "An Arkadelphia mother is charged with harassment for making entries on her son's Facebook page. Denise New's 16-year-old son filed charges against her last month and requested a no-contact order after he claims she posted slanderous entries about him on the social networking site. New says she was just trying to monitor what he was posting." Seems like he could just unfriend her.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

428 comments

The real question (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | about 4 years ago | (#31764894)

The real question I have is how someone from Arkadelphia learned to get on Facebook in the first place, much less two of them.

Re:The real question (1, Flamebait)

wykell (1323665) | about 4 years ago | (#31765140)

Or how they managed to do so when there isn't even new-fangled 'lectricity there yet.

16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0, Offtopic)

Kenja (541830) | about 4 years ago | (#31764910)

Parents have total power of attorney till the kid is eighteen or emancipated last I checked. He wants to sue, I would think he would have to first file to be an emancipated minor. At which point the parents are no longer responsable for his health or wellbeing.

Course I could be totally wrong. Its happened once before.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Informative)

quantumplacet (1195335) | about 4 years ago | (#31764930)

RTFA, his grandparents have custodial rights, not his mother.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 4 years ago | (#31764950)

Bah, missed that part. Stupid job, distracting me from what's important.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765292)

So you have time to write an opinion but no time to actually read the facts?

Seems somewhat selective distraction to me...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 4 years ago | (#31765342)

Yup, thats the danger of working from home. Have to double check that I have pants on before I go out to lunch.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765522)

Isn't this what's wrong with America.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | about 4 years ago | (#31765752)

This is slashdot, it is perfectly acceptable to do just that. In fact, it's implied.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 years ago | (#31765212)

But I was thinking the other day with reference to this in general.

Do parents "really" have any power over their kids today? I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them. Heck, if kid really wants to fsck their parents, just claim something sexual....and the parent is then pretty much branded for life, even if they did nothing wrong but try to discipline their child.

A child that realizes this power and is willing to wield it....what could a parent really do?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765338)

I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.

That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:

35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:

1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765368)

South Park did an episode on this. It was pretty good.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (5, Interesting)

Skye16 (685048) | about 4 years ago | (#31765382)

I think you underestimate how much you have to beat a kid to get child services on you. Not even after my mother had my 12 year old brother drive her home from the bar (because she was drunk), then beat him so badly he was in the hospital for 3 days would the courts award my father custody. It took all of that plus a few failed drug tests before she finally gave up custody of him. Who knows what the courts would have decided, but it takes a hell of a lot to get your child taken away from you. A whole hell of a lot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765780)

Not in Missouri. If the child has bruises or a "marking" in an area that looks like they disciplined then they could take custody away

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (3, Interesting)

Gates82 (706573) | about 4 years ago | (#31765402)

I totally agree with this sentiment. I work with a youth group at my church, mainly the teenage boys, and some are forced to attend by their parents, and they are impossible to control. Growing up I attended the same group and participated as I wished but did not actively cause problems at risk of punishment that may be doled out even though my parents could not really do anything (I just didn't really realize it). The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything. A very dangerous line has been crossed in the American Society. Just my thoughts

--
Who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765478)

The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything.

So hit the little bastards until they realize who the boss is. Contrary to popular belief, it's still legal in all 50 states to use corporal punishment on your kids. Of course disciplining your kids would require being around them and why would you do a silly thing like that when you can rely on the Wii and TV to raise them?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (2, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 4 years ago | (#31765862)

All depends on the state you're living in. In Florida it's completely legal to physically discipline your child.

Fla. Stat. Ann. 39.01(2), (30)(f), (45) (West, WESTLAW through End of 2003 Reg. Sess.)

Corporal discipline of a child by a parent, legal custodian, or caregiver for disciplinary purposes does not in itself constitute abuse when it does not result in harm to the child.

You just can't beat them till you leave bruises or welts. If you use a wide enough paddle, this won't happen because of the surface area. My parents used to use a cut down boat oar. Hurt like a mofo, but never left marks.

I wonder if there is any correlation between states that have outlawed physically disciplining minors & instances of youth offenders?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Insightful)

uberjack (1311219) | about 4 years ago | (#31765646)

If a child's willing to go that far, it's probably a safe bet that their family's already pretty fucked up.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (2, Informative)

ClintJCL (264898) | about 4 years ago | (#31765040)

You really should read the articles before posting comments. The mother didn't have custody. If she hacked, that's not just a tort, that's a crime. Possibly federal, if they are in different states.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | about 4 years ago | (#31765044)

Except that the grandmother has legal custody in this case, so you're point is moot.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Funny)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about 4 years ago | (#31765164)

so you're point is moot.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31765126)

>>>Parents have total power of attorney till the kid is eighteen

The world doesn't work like that anymore. I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted." You are no longer the ultimate master in your home - your kids are, and they are backed the Child Protective Services. You teach the wrong thing, and you will lose custody.

It's moving towards 1984 where parents were afraid to speak, for fear the kids would report them, and the CPS would arrest the mom and dad.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31765194)

I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."

Because prisonplanet and infowars are news websites of great repute. Oh wait...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31765484)

Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources. For example, notice how they described the "hate speech" coming from Tea Party protestors, but completely ignored the anti-war riots happening in Berkeley just one week earlier. Or how they reported on the "Obama is a Nazi" posters, but completely ignored the "Bush is a Nazi" or "Bush is a chimp" posters in 2008.

Or the black man that Obama supporters beat to a pulp last month. These TV news organizations have sold-out to Democrats and only present the news that favors Democrats, while ignoring news that does not. And why not? Democrats have pledged to work with RIAA and MPAA to protect the TV/movie industry's productions.

Hence the nickname - DNC-NBC. Links to child custody case:
(read the CPS report at the bottom of the page)
http://trueslant.com/stephenwebster/2010/03/30/tx-county-teaching-kids-government-is-out-to-harm-them-makes-parents-unsuitable/ [trueslant.com]
(google) http://www.google.com/search?q=seize+Child+distrusting+Government [google.com]

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31765604)

Well if ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et cetera are censoring the news by ignoring these stories, then you have to turn to alternate sources.

Do you have any proof that the story you referred to is being censored by those news outlets? Do you have any citation to any public records to show that this incident actually happened? I've read the story both on infowars and prisonplanet and neither of them have any details. They make vague claims about a "couple in texas" that had their kid taken away. Considering these websites long track record of posting bullshit and phoney stories, you'd have to be a nutjob to believe it.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765628)

Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.

Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31765674)

Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.

Yeah, but leaving such a detail in would undermine his entire argument.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31765720)

Democrats have pledged to work with RIAA and MPAA to protect the TV/movie industry's productions.

I hate to break it to you but the RIAA and MPAA also have republicans on their side. You remember that little law called the DMCA? Do you know from which party came the congressman who introduced the bill? The republican party. Do you know the current political affiliation of the current RIAA president? Republican again. If you think the Republicans aren't just as much in the pockets of the RIAA and MPAA you're even more dumb then you come across now.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | about 4 years ago | (#31765832)

Ignoring made-up stuff by nutjobs seems a legitimate role for news organisations.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765414)

I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."

Citation?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31765530)

His citation is infowars or prisonplanet or numerous other sites parroting those sites.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765464)

I am a high school student (16y.o.) and am reading this book (1984) during the silent reading time students are given, I think it should be a required book. The similarities one can draw between the book and reality as of now are appalling.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765886)

Im 12 years old and what is this?

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765812)

It's moving towards 1984 where parents were afraid to speak, for fear the kids would report them, and the CPS would arrest the mom and dad.

No it isn't. Kids being able to get themselves taken into custody by the CPS just because they don't like their parents is nothing like the police state described in 1984. I wish people would stop noticing loose similarities between the world we live in and the world described in 1984. It was supposed to be reminiscent of the real world. It was supposed to encourage vigilance, not paranoia. Thanks to every idiot on the 'net citing 1984 in every discussion thread on every subject, the book is rapidly becoming a joke. We need a variant of Godwin's law to cover this.

As for that story you refer to, I imagine there's more to it than has been revealed. While there may be a troubling aspect to what happened, I am not in the habit of condemning people or organisations - especially government organisations - based on n-th hand reports on the Internet - they tend to have a distorting focus.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765142)

not true. i sued my parents when i was 16. didn't need to be emancipated.

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (5, Funny)

bhamlin (986048) | about 4 years ago | (#31765444)

And look at you now. You don't even have a name...

Re:16 years old, no legal rights against parents. (1)

bmo (77928) | about 4 years ago | (#31765722)

You didn't read the article.

You're totally wrong.

She has no rights. Not in this case.

--
BMO

No contact. (0, Troll)

pclminion (145572) | about 4 years ago | (#31764916)

A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?

Either the kid's worthless, or the mom is, or both. In any case, who gives a crap about this trash?

Re:No contact. (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31764942)

A no contact order against your mom? How exactly is that supposed to work?

The same way any sort of restraining order works?

Re:No contact. (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31765036)

The kid's grandparents have custody. But more importantly, there is never a good reason to write any human being off as 'trash.' Never. Not even Hitler. If we just wrote him off as 'trash' we would never understand how he came to exist. We human beings have empathy for a reason.

Re:No contact. (1, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about 4 years ago | (#31765106)

I meant the article, not the people involved. "Family in middle America has fucked up issues." Why is this interesting?

Re:No contact. (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31765184)

You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way. We would all be better off if everyone were happy, well adjusted, and could contribute to society, don't you think? Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?

Re:No contact. (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765536)

Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?

Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.

Re:No contact. (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31765790)

The choices that people make do not come out of the blue. They are not uncaused causes. They are part of an unbroken chain of cause and effect, and if we want to have a better world with less suffering, we must understand why people make the choices they do. Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything, contains no predictive power as a theory, and does nothing except provide an excuse not to care about a problem.

Re:No contact. (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#31765868)

Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything

Perhaps not, but it accurately describes many individuals that I've had the misfortune of interacting with.

Re:No contact. (1)

pclminion (145572) | about 4 years ago | (#31765564)

Perhaps I'm feeling overly misanthropic today. But let's drop the false dichotomy, shall we? I don't wish anybody dead.

Re:No contact. (1)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31765750)

Sorry. It's just that some people actually do think that way. I'm glad you don't.

Re:No contact. (5, Interesting)

SmackTheIgnorant (985978) | about 4 years ago | (#31765578)

You said, "Either the kid's worthless or the mom is" Very few people are truly worthless, and if they are, we as a society need to figure out if we let them down in some way.

Society isn't to blame for a person's mistakes, or a person's actions. Some successful people have risen from being poor and destitute, others have had life handed to them on a silver platter and threw it all away. We make choices, our own choices, and no one is to blame but us for the choices we make. Society isn't responsible for why this teen feels the urge to sue his mother - society has simply shown that it's possible... the individual is making it his own choice to sue. Others have felt the urge to communicate with their parents and work out a resolution to stop them from doing these things - was he not given the ability to talk with her? To Unfriend her? To mark his profile as private? These are HIS choices - not ours.

Very few people are held in a position where they HAVE to smoke, drink, do drugs, steal - maybe peer pressure pushes them to doing things once, but it's up to them to either stop or continue doing so. The choice is ultimately theirs. The choice this individual made, in this instance for this issue, was to sue.

Don't blame "Society" for his mistakes... "We" didn't let him down. He did it all by himself.

Re:No contact. (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31765734)

Choices come from life experience, genetics, and circumstance. "Choices" are not uncaused causes. Every choice has a reason it was made.

Re:No contact. (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 4 years ago | (#31765102)

It is cheaper to keep this trash closer to the middle, where they work, but are neither on the dole or in jail. The latter case costs us too much per year.

Alternatives (3, Insightful)

mr100percent (57156) | about 4 years ago | (#31764948)

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

Re:Alternatives (2, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#31764980)

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

The kid lives with his grandmother and the mother has no custodial rights. That would make it a little hard for the mom to punish him in any way.

Re:Alternatives (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | about 4 years ago | (#31765088)

That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

I love the "Tachy Goes to Coventry" (Global Ignore) feature of vBulletin. Banning users, or having the user *know* they are ignored just prompts them to find ways around it. When the user spins their wheels and has no idea they are being ignored, they keep doing it. Funny, actually.

Re:Alternatives (4, Informative)

Davey McDave (926282) | about 4 years ago | (#31765486)

A case of RTFA in this case, a careless untruthful comment on the summary.

"In a document from the Clark County prosecutor, he alleges she hacked his account, changed his password and posted things that involve slander about his personal life."

The posts weren't from her account on his statuses or whatever, it sounds like she actually went onto HIS account and posted slanderous things in his name (or at least, that is what is being accused). Sounds a little more serious now.

Re:Alternatives (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 years ago | (#31765492)

I suppose simply unfriending her would not be feasible. (Maybe she'd take away his computer if he tried or punish him or something)

There are clear and easy alternatives. Delete her posts after she makes them, or even better, use Facebook privacy controls to remove her ability to comment on his posts. I'm kinda surprised he didn't put her on Limited Profile, like everyone else seems to do. That's the best because people don't always realize they're being shut out of something.

Read the article, she allegedly hacked his account and posted under his name.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765716)

So how would you go about putting someone on Limited Profile who hacked into your account?

Re:Alternatives (1)

El Gigante de Justic (994299) | about 4 years ago | (#31765872)

The article is lacking detail on the exact actions taken, but he is accusing her of logging into his account and posting as him and changing his password, not just posting things to his wall or comments to his status. If she did use his log-in, then he actually has a case.

Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31765052)

It looks like she's wearing a stiff helmet.

Re:Look at the Blonde Anchors' Hair (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#31765588)

Haven't you ever noticed before that men tend to wear facial hair designed to resemble a woman's pubic patch, while women tend to wear hairstyles shaped like the head of a penis? Sort of a Freudian indicator of what their thinking of, I guess.

NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! (5, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | about 4 years ago | (#31765114)

So at first I felt like the kid was overreacting. Parents (or those in loco parentis, which I'll get to in a moment) have a legitimate need-to-know when it comes to what's going on in their kids' lives.

However, according to the article, this kid's mom doesn't have custody. The grandparents do, and so this doesn't seem to be due to divorce or other "ordinary" situations that would cause a parent to lose custody of their own kids. In other words, something is seriously messed up here, and so while the fact that this is a mother/son thing is good for grabbing ratings, it's not really all that relevant to the matter at hand.

Moral of the story: RTFA.

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about 4 years ago | (#31765568)

What the heck is happening in the U.S. these days? I've heard at least half of my kids friends' utter the phrase "I have to ask my grandma".

Re:NOOOOO, my delicate preconceived notions! (0)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#31765774)

Usually that means Mom is closer to one decade older than her kids, rather than two or three decades. Mom is still being raised by Grandma, still a teenager. Its not unusual to see 25 year old grandmas. That's actually a pretty good age to be raising kids, even if they're grand-kids...

Best advice is acorns don't fall far from the tree. You may want to limit your kids contact with those kids, etc etc.

This crap has gone too far. (2, Insightful)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | about 4 years ago | (#31765160)

Now, I don't use Facebook (or any similar site), but can't he just block her?

Since when have people become so helpless online that they cry for help every time somebody does something they don't like? You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE.

This is why I have no tolerance for anyone using the term cyber-bullying. Even if you have a full-on /b/tard attack, they'll get bored and go away if you ignore it long enough. Welcome to the internet, thar'be trolls here.

Re:This crap has gone too far. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765422)

You can TAKE YOURSELF OF OF ANY SITUATION ONLINE.

Always a good idea, if posting in ALL CAPS, to check spelling first.

Re:This crap has gone too far. (3, Informative)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 years ago | (#31765538)

She allegedly hacked into his account and made posts from it so no, he can't just block her.

from the article; she cracked his pw (5, Insightful)

random coward (527722) | about 4 years ago | (#31765200)

According to the article; she isn't his costodian, and she didn't just post on his wall; she stole his password and posted to his wall as him. So identity theft much? Computer crime much?

The fact that a Judge granted the restraining order against a women on behalf of a 16yo male(son) also should be a good indication of the situation.

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 years ago | (#31765406)

I don't use Facebook, but are you not able to edit your own posts? Or is it like Slashdot, written in stone once you hit submit?

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw (3, Interesting)

Tainek (912325) | about 4 years ago | (#31765580)

I don't use Facebook, but are you not able to edit your own posts? Or is it like Slashdot, written in stone once you hit submit?

On Facebook you can delete your posts, But you can't remove it from peoples thoughts

Re:from the article; she cracked his pw (1)

DarKnyht (671407) | about 4 years ago | (#31765502)

For free entertainment go read the comments on the story. Mom has registered and is spamming the board with her side of the story.

One thing I will agree with her on (if true) is that if the kid was stupid enough to leave his account logged in on her computer then he got what he deserved. I don't know too many people that haven't been the victim of leaving their account logged in only to find someone else "updated" their status for them.

Supposed Mom giving more details in comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31765284)

Just wanted to note that someone, possibly the mother is adding more details and explains some things in the comments section.

Re:Supposed Mom giving more details in comments (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#31765498)

Just wanted to note that someone, possibly the mother, is posting numerous comments demonstrating that she is both illiterate and batshit crazy in the comments section. This isn't helping your case any, Ms. New!

Stupid woman (5, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#31765420)

Half of the comments on that article are by Ms. New herself. Obviously she hasn't hired a lawyer yet, because the first thing a lawyer would do is tell her to STFU... she isn't making herself look like any more fit a parent by showing her ass in public in all these postings... and they're probably admissible in court as evidence that she is continuing to harass and slander her son!

The real story, for me... (0, Troll)

wjc_25 (1686272) | about 4 years ago | (#31765514)

...is the wording of Arkansas's "harassment" offense law: "A person commits the offense if with purpose to harass, annoy or alarm another person without good cause, he engages in conduct or repeatedly commits acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person." (from the article)

It's unnerving to think that it's possible to take legal action against someone for such a vaguely defined offense. Think back to your childhood--or high school even, or college: how often did you "annoy or alarm another person without good cause"? Cripes sake, who hasn't? Suddenly this enormous, near-universal category of human interaction, namely anything that annoys or frightens one person "for no good reason," is legally actionable. Terrifying.

How about he just leaves facebook. (2, Interesting)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 4 years ago | (#31765528)

Facebook is a really lame site. If he cares so much about her posts then just close the facebook account. You want to update your friends call them, talk to them. Facebook is the reason people are becoming anti social. For thousands of years people got along with out facebook and I bet we can get along again by just doing face to face or call to call social networking.

On the other hand, she shouldn't post on his wall but the simple solution is post on her wall, if she did steal his password he can change his password. So I don't see why he's making such a massive problem out of this. If he thought about a solution he could have this cleared up in 1 second.

RTFA before commenting (1, Insightful)

FreakerSFX (256894) | about 4 years ago | (#31765534)

I see that most people are commenting on just the headline without understanding the issues because they haven't read the...

wait, this is slashdot. I suppose it's not surprising.

Still this is one time that not reading the article is going to bite you in the ass.

A custodial parent does have the right to discipline their child. This parent could remove access and legally post (from their account) comments on their child's wall. Whether or not they have the right to hack the kids account is really not clear at this point. First, a parent doing this is generally violating the terms of use agreement of the website in question. Second, there are specific laws in some regions regarding this type of approach which would make it a crime.

This situation is pretty clear - the mom vastly overstepped her bounds and needs to be smacked for it. If it were my kid and they were living with me, I'd ask to see their account - if they refused to show it to me or I saw things that were troubling, I'd deal with them by denying access to the computer at my house and grounding them unless they deleted their account permanently or cleaned it up.

Parents do have ways to coerce their kids into cooperating. If the kids want to call family services falsely to get mom and dad back, go ahead. Their new home isn't likely to have a computer or parents that care or necessarily even be that safe an environment. Foster parents cover the gamut from loving, capable people to those who are prone to abuse children. I would never let my kid blackmail me. Don't like the rules, you may leave...my dad said that and I hate to parrot him now but he was right. Boundaries are too important to make deals and give up moral authority on.

Inquiring minds want to know... (4, Funny)

tompaulco (629533) | about 4 years ago | (#31765678)

If he is emancipated from his mom, are they still considered brother and sister?

Get it right (0, Offtopic)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#31765814)

Where do you get "sues" and "files suit" from? Harassment is a criminal charge, not a civil one.

The Best Part is the Discussion (1)

ceritus (719474) | about 4 years ago | (#31765898)

Some quotes from the mother (drnew01):

!st of all...even tho she has legal cust...that has never mattered b4. I hired an atty for him when he was hit by a DD...I signed all the paper work not his grandmother...they had no prob with me not being his guardian when he got busted with pot....I delt with his atty for that and the same prosecutor that has filed this. It didnt matter that I wasnt his legal guardian when he was skipping school...I was the the school called. They cannot pick n choose when i should be in his life and when I shouldnt. My son has had a long list of behaviorial problem for awhile now. He not only endangers himself but other kids as well. Furthermore I didnt HACK into anything...he left his FB loggied in ON MY COMPUTER....and me having his password was a given if he wanted to use my computer. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO MONITOR HIM.....just b/c i dont have custody doesnt mean i dont care...and maybe if grandmother was doing her JOB I WOULDNT HAVE TO!

...

Hmmmm well I'll keep all this in mind when he kills sum1 and makes the news then. PPL like you all..those that dont monitor ur kids are whats wrong with this country. I hope like the world economy is better by the time your kids grow up...b/c if this generation is going to be our future I want no part of that...Id rather move to another country. Most of t hem are spoiled rotten vendictive little brats...and that is what my son is. THE ONLY REASON he is doing this is b/c of spite. AND IF I WERENT TRYING TO MONITOR HIM..... SUMHOW ID BE RESPONSIBLE for his mess ups in the end any way. Everything always bout the blame game. And no1 is responsible for anything any more. Here i am trying to be...and look where it gets me.

...

!st of all I didnt lose custody. I had a mental brk down while going thru a divorce and losing our home in a fire..so that is why grandmother has him...2cnd of HE LEFT HIS FB page LOGGED IN ON MY COMPUTER...and the things I found were mind blowing eyey popping and draw dropping. SO bad they cudnt air it on TV....these types of things are now being looked at by college recruitors and future employers. Maybe if granny was monitoring him I wouldnt have to?????

Seriously, go read the whole comment section, it's illuminating.

http://cfc.katv.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?forum=17&topic=78400&srow=1&erow=10 [katv.com]

Newflash Mother gets sued by son for doing her job (-1, Flamebait)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 4 years ago | (#31765946)

Let's see every Internet safety class I went to for my son says I have to monitor his Internet usage and then report on it.

When he acts up or misbehaves I have to let him know what he did and use empathy and consequences and how he can correct it to grow up and become a responsible adult that has good behavior, good actions, and makes good decisions and has a good system of morals and ethics. [loveandlogic.com] This is also how Critical Thinking works. [criticalthinking.org]

But many disagree on how Child Psychology should work [wikia.com] and Maddox says don't be a p*ssy beat your kids [thebestpag...iverse.net] if she followed the Maddox method he wouldn't even sue her for slander.

The kid is a retard, slander is the spoken word, libel is the written word, I worked for lawyers for four and a half years so I know stuff like that.

If he was my son and did crap like that on Facebook, I'd take away his Internet privileges until he learns his lesson about responsibility and making good decisions instead of bad ones. That would be a consequence of his bad decisions and bad behavior on Facebook and the rest of the Internet. But I'd bet I'd still get sued as the ACLU will claim I violated his rights to troll people on Facebook, Kuro5hin, Slashdot, The Daily Kos, 4Chan, Blogger, Current, Digg, Reddit, etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...